One thing we have not discussed here is the ecological impact of CDs and DVDs. Thee are the equivalent of film in some ways and contain a lot of chemistry that follows them through their lives to the garbage heap.

PE

There should be laws that any new product or invention has to be accompanied with a process to break it down/recycle it as part of the licensing process.

05-19-2013, 12:55 PM

Slixtiesix

Quote:

one DSLR sensor or one ram drive with pictures contains more toxins than that 365 gallons of developer. If you expose the developer to air and sunlight it oxidizes and becomes neutral in pH, thus becoming nearly harmless. The bacteria in sewage treatment do the rest. The sensor OTOH, has non-biodegradable toxins that leach into the ground water where it is dumped

Wow PE, as opposed to me, you´re an absolute authority on these things. I stand corrected!

05-19-2013, 12:55 PM

jnanian

from what i remember electric cameras and computers still use electricity, even though it might be battery powered.
making electricity is not a waste free process unless people are using their personal wind or solar farm ....
i would guess there is quite a bit of pollution involved with manufacturing film and paper, just like there is in making digital-stuff.

people believe what they want, in the end it really doesn't matter ..

05-19-2013, 12:59 PM

MattKing

One of the complicating issues in respect to this problem is the issue of timing. Another is the issue of geographical concentration.

The environmental consequences of film and analogue processes are spread out over the life of the process (R & D, manufacture, transport, cold storage, processing, projection/printing) in a different way and at more/different locations than the environmental consequences of digital processes (R & D, manufacture, transport, battery operation, display/printing).

At some points in the process, and at some locations, film and analogue processes may have a more extensive impact. And at other points in the process, and at some locations,digital processes may have a more extensive impact.

We are often more attuned to the impacts that are local (processing) than the impacts that appear more distant (manufacture in another part of the world).

I remember a fair bit of discussion about Kodachrome being less environmentally "friendly" than E6 film, but I expect that opinion was based mostly on looking at the processing part of the equation, where the impact was concentrated in a very few, relatively high volume locations, and involved the effect of the dyes, which with Kodachrome are/were added at time of development, instead of at time of manufacture, which is the case with E6 films.

05-19-2013, 05:19 PM

Poisson Du Jour

Quote:

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

Well Slixtisix, one DSLR sensor or one ram drive with pictures contains more toxins than that 365 gallons of developer. If you expose the developer to air and sunlight it oxidizes and becomes neutral in pH, thus becoming nearly harmless. The bacteria in sewage treatment do the rest. The sensor OTOH, has non-biodegradable toxins that leach into the ground water where it is dumped.

That ones sensor contains arsenic and selenium, which are toxic forever. They do not biodegrade.

PE

This is awful, but not news. Where do old non-working DSLRs go, if not in shops? Maybe I shouldn't ask: landfill? <*shudder*>

05-19-2013, 06:37 PM

ic-racer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slixtiesix

producing 365 gallons of developer waste

...and that would be more or less harmful to the environment than the 365 gallons of human waste what would be collected should someone be forced to view 100,000 digital images?...

05-19-2013, 06:51 PM

Photo Engineer

Since photographic processing solutions are deemed (for the most part) biodegradable or harmless, the processing solutions are rather harmless if dumped. Also, the solutions are not all dumped down the drain at once.

As for the sensors, there was a photo of some children and women in an SEA country take as they worked over a landfill looking for precious metals in the debris. It was shown that runoff from rain ran from the landfill to a stream and to a small town. So, the people were getting their doses of Arsenic and Mercury from two sources. This photo was posted on APUG years ago!!!

That is how long this discussion has been going on.

PE

05-19-2013, 06:55 PM

batwister

Quote:

Originally Posted by ic-racer

...and that would be more or less harmful to the environment than the 365 gallons of human waste what would be collected should someone be forced to view 100,000 digital images?...

What if they're good images?

"Ouch" he says.

05-19-2013, 06:58 PM

Tom1956

Quote:

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

Since photographic processing solutions are deemed (for the most part) biodegradable or harmless, the processing solutions are rather harmless if dumped. Also, the solutions are not all dumped down the drain at once.

As for the sensors, there was a photo of some children and women in an SEA country take as they worked over a landfill looking for precious metals in the debris. It was shown that runoff from rain ran from the landfill to a stream and to a small town. So, the people were getting their doses of Arsenic and Mercury from two sources. This photo was posted on APUG years ago!!!

That is how long this discussion has been going on.

PE

+1

05-19-2013, 07:08 PM

Poisson Du Jour

Quote:

Originally Posted by batwister

What if they're good images?

"Ouch" he says.

What constitutes "good"?
Extremely unlikely at that quantity. It's waste and mental dislocation on a grand scale. I certainly can't count that many of my own photographs over 36 years!